What's your Religion

[STRMfrmXMN]

I believe in spirits.

I do too. And yet I do not believe in a god. Amazing how that works.

Basically, I only believe in spirits because of personal experience with my old condo and the mysterious "mirror fell onto the floor in front of me in broad daylight and it was 3-legged and on a counter and it fucking fell and I pretty much shit myself.: - story.

[EarthboundHero]

Okay, so I saw some arguing about the Big Bang Theory. Didn't read it, but wanted to clear up some points. Big Bang is a terrible way to describe it. What we think happened was that a point of energy was so condensed, this point could have been anything (Old universe or something else), that it built up enough energy to quickly expand. It's not a big bang, but a great expansion. There is proof of the as everything in the universe is moving apart. This expansion has increased in speed, and that's how we can predict how old the universe is. 

[stconquest]

I do too. And yet I do not believe in a god. Amazing how that works.

Basically, I only believe in spirits because of personal experience with my old condo and the mysterious "mirror fell onto the floor in front of me in broad daylight and it was 3-legged and on a counter and it fucking fell and I pretty much shit myself.: - story.

 

Spirits also = Hard Alcohol

 

:blink: :wacko: :unsure:

[stconquest]

Okay, so I saw some arguing about the Big Bang Theory. Didn't read it, but wanted to clear up some points. Big Bang is a terrible way to describe it. What we think happened was that a point of energy was so condensed, this point could have been anything (Old universe or something else), that it built up enough energy to quickly expand. It's not a big bang, but a great expansion. There is proof of the as everything in the universe is moving apart. This expansion has slowed, and that's how we can predict how old the universe is. 

 

The expansion has not slowed.  It is actually increasing in speed.  Research it.

[EarthboundHero]

The expansion has not slowed.  It is actually increasing in speed.  Research it.

Wow, thanks. I'll fix that.

[stconquest]

The use of our imagination itself pales in comparison to the truth it can discover.

 

Giant celestial bodies actually speeding away from each other at increasing speeds...like wtf.

 

@EarthboundHero

[Imabigmac]

First OlekKing quote:  Modern craftsmen are not even capable of building a wooden ship 3/4 the size of the ark described in the bible.  It simply does not resist the twisting and bending to the structure by the ocean.  I would site resources, reference to the largest of wooden ships attempted... but I am lazy.

 

Second quote:  The event that we know as the big bang is observable, not directly but indirectly.  The event simply did happen.

Not sure whether your adding to his statement or trying to point something out to me. 

 

And according to wiki the Egyptians built a 95M vessel - described as a more of barge 1500 years BCE and it was nearly 300 feet long. To put that in perspective the Arleigh Burke class US navy Warships are 500 feet long. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ships

[stconquest]

http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

 

lol

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer

 

Yup, that warship is sure made out of wood.

[ahhming]

 

-snip-

 

 

 

[tobben]

They do indeed collide quite well... it still really intrigues me however. The points raised and the way people go about to defend their position is a great example of how we operate psychologically.

 

EDIT: The type of thread that gets the gears in my head moving! 

 

Off topic: Voting thread for this week will be up in a hour or so.

I know i am being captain obvious, but in spite of that many people don't seem to get it.. i would

like to round off my comment by adding this. In the extreme cases, or just people strongly leaning

to one side over the other. Your disagreement lies on a very fundamental lvl, all you can do is to

agree to disagree and be done with it. Just understand where your disagreement lies, the paradox

being that if they did. They wouldn't be having the discussion in the way they approached it in the

first place. 

 

When a conversation deteriorates to nitpicking at specific words, and purposely misinterpreting

or exaggerating eachothers concepts, not properly evaluating arguments . It is flung into a spiral

loop which will yield no fruits and have neither party leaving the conversation any wiser. in which

case the solution is to simply walk away, instead of arguing for the sole purpose of arguing. 

A pattern you see very often, a conversation i don't really want to waste time reading..

[SeriouslyMikey]

This thread started off so well, then one or two individuals just had to start a heated debate. 

Is it really this hard to talk about other people's faiths without flipping a table? 

[techswede]

This thread started off so well, then one or two individuals just had to start a heated debate. 

Is it really this hard to talk about other people's faiths without flipping a table? 

Seems like it is...

 

Also have you no ambition?

 ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻

Yup. That's two tables at once   

[SeriouslyMikey]

Seems like it is...

 

Also have you no ambition?

 ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻

Yup. That's two tables at once   

 

Oi! My drink was on one of those tables!

[The_Strict_Nein]

Atheist.

 

Went to a Catholic secondary and primary school, had a lot of great debate with my teachers about religion, and came to the conclusion that the words just don't add up. If a God were to exist, he has done nothing to show himself as worthy of the title God.

[OlekKing]

This thread started off so well, then one or two individuals just had to start a heated debate. 

Is it really this hard to talk about other people's faiths without flipping a table? 

It's a bit hard when you have Scientifically illiterate people misrepresenting and straw-manning Science in some ridiculous ways, then claiming that their ancient textbook is "just as possible". Then some 17 year old teenager comes in and starts threatening to silence me because he can't formulate any rebuttal to what i've said. I was tired yesterday and i wasn't going to have any of it. Yeah I used some name calling, but I never resorted to ad-hominem. You have to keep that in mind. A few times I try to be as nice as possible and explain to them why they are wrong and I just continue getting the same response and the same straw manning.

Then I spend some time trying to explain our best current scientific hypothesis for the origin of the Universe, while never claiming that they are absolute truth, and I continue getting that kid talking about the Bible and some "archaeological" findings which i'm not even sure are true, for which i still haven't gotten any source and which proved absolutely nothing. What the hell does this kid think he's doing here? I've had these discussions with moronic religious apologists who are almost always scientifically illiterate and who always try to misrepresent Science, to no avail, it just makes you look like an intellectually dishonest piece of sh*t.

And this kid continues touting nonsense and claiming that the Bible is "scientific", I mean this is the tipping point, this is when you know the other side is desperate.

[OlekKing]

deGrasse Tyson is da real MVP.

[OlekKing]

You said it, not me;

Said what? I wasn't even talking to you, why did you just put up some random quote of mine?

Have something to say, or what?

[OlekKing]

I must say, if anyone is genuinely interested in the science behind the Christian faith (like, there's actually scientific evidence and stuff! *excited*), shoot me a PM

No there isn't, but please go ahead and post it all here for the sake of everyone's amusement.

 

Faith is belief that is not based on proof, I mean do you really pretend to not know the words definition? Do you think everyone else here is an idiot who doesn't notice when you tout this ridiculous crap?

[techswede]

No there isn't, but please go ahead and post it all here for the sake of everyone's amusement.

 

Faith is belief that is not based on proof, I mean do you really pretend to not know the words definition? Do you think everyone else here is an idiot who doesn't notice when you tout this ridiculous crap?

Enough already. The thread was getting back on track. Don't start this up again.

[OlekKing]

Enough already. The thread was getting back on track. Don't start this up again.

Start what? I'm being polite to begin with.

He said that he was in possession of "scientific evidence and stuff" about the Christian faith (belief not based on evidence).

I mean that sounds a pretty extraordinary claim to me, i'm not sure why he doesn't want to share this fantastic knowledge with all of us here but instead wants people to have private conversations about it.

[techswede]

Start what? I'm being polite to begin with.

He said that he was in possession of "scientific evidence and stuff" about the Christian faith (belief not based on evidence).

I mean that sounds a pretty extraordinary claim to me, i'm not sure why he doesn't want to share this fantastic knowledge with all of us here but instead wants people to have private conversations about it.

Still doesn't change the fact that it devolves into an argument.

[OlekKing]

*Bunch of statements about archaeological findings without any source that could be verified*

The Smithsonian's department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah's flood in particular. The following statement was made to answer these questions:

 

"Most Biblical scholars and Near Eastern archaeologists and historians regard the Biblical story of the flood and Noah's Ark as a story handed down by oral tradition. This story has obvious relationships with the Mesopotamian account of a flood found in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Biblical and Mesopotamian accounts differ in important details--The respective boats are of different sizes and shapes; the Biblical boat lands on Mount Ararat, the Mesopotamian boat lands on Mount Nisir--and both stories may go back to a still earlier common source which remains unknown to us today.

 

Many people ask if the Biblical flood actually took place, i.e. a flood which literally covered the entire earth and wiped out all living things except those which managed to board the ark? The occurrence of a flood story in both the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as in other folk traditions, does hint that there may have been enormous flooding of river valleys in a far distant time. However, thus far, after literally hundreds of archaeological excavations at different times in the Near East, no all-encompassing flood stratum has ever been found. During the 1920's, Sir Leonard Woolley found a six foot...:thick flood layer at Ur with evidence of earlier occupations below the flood layer and later occupations above it. We now know that this flood stratum was deposited by a change in the course of the Euphrates River that meandered rather widely over the flood plain, much as the Mississippi River once did before flood control measures were taken. Other sites near Ur display no such evidence of a flood stratum. Another difficulty in verifying the Biblical story is that the identification of the particular mountain now known as Ararat goes back to no more than a few hundred years, and, in fact, we have no idea where an ancient Mount Ararat might have been located. In addition, there is no hard evidence of an early ship resting on top of any mountain anywhere in the Near East.

 

In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated. There are conflicts between present archaeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers.

 

However, in the stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

 

It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document."

[shiftberry]

-snip-

Here is my question to you: 

 

Does religion encourage science?

[Toddwjp]

Here is my question to you: 

 

Does religion encourage science?

 

no, occasionally it does but very often it merely gets in the way of science which is fuelled by human curiosity not religion

[OlekKing]

Here is my question to you: 

 

Does religion encourage science?

Not when Science starts questioning it. Religion discourages it as well as critical thinking, whenever they oppose or put it in question.

 

Look at the amount of people in the USA for example, who preach against Stem Cell research on religious grounds.